HC Deb 18 April 1972 vol 835 cc465-76

3.18 a.m.

Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Maryhill)

Even at this early hour of the morning I am glad to have the opportunity to raise on this Adjournment debate the topic of the curtailment of the teachers' special recruitment scheme in Scotland as announced by the Secretary of State on 14th March. I am glad too that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education has waited to answer the debate. He no doubt thought it his duty to do so, but he was inconvenienced on an earlier occasion by an all-night sitting.

My first criticism is of the method adopted by the Secretary of State in making such an important announcement about the curtailment of the scheme. This is not a minor decision but one which affects local authorities, the General Teaching Council, teaching organisations and, above all, the potential students. It is a poor example of the much-heralded open forum of Government to shelter behind a stooge Question put down for Written Answer in making such an important announcement. By so doing the right hon. Gentleman denied us the opportunity in the House to ask oral questions at the time of the announcement in order to elicit further informa- tion. Those of us with deep interest in this matter feel sad about it.

On 14th March, the right hon. Gentleman replied to what is known as a "planted Question" from the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis). I hope we shall have an assurance that this technique will be abandoned when important changes of policy have to be announced. The essence of the announcement was to restrict the scheme to two categories of applicant—the older graduates who have been in industry and want to come into teaching, people with equivalent qualifications wishing to train as primary and secondary teachers; and, secondly, those specialists in technical subjects wishing to take teaching qualifications. I understand that all other applications will be refused on the ground that they will be able to apply for assistance from other public funds, such as the students' allowance schemes, and from education authorities.

This seems to deny the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's opening sentence of his statement on 14th March, which was that he welcomed to the teaching profession all mature individuals, particularly those with experience of industry and commerce. It is a strange way to show his welcome.

Some questions arise immediately. Can the hon. Gentleman provide a breakdown, for example, of the total number recruited last year or for the past three years, if possible dividing them into the three categories mentioned—first, the older graduates; secondly, the technical specialists; and thirdly those now to be refused? This would give an idea of the potential loss we are likely to suffer. Of those in the third category, how many have been going into primary schools, and how many into secondary schools, where the need is still very great for competent teachers? If this modification had been introduced three years ago, of how many teachers would we now have been deprived?

This scheme was introduced in 1951 by Miss Margaret Herbison, when she was Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Many men and women who later became teachers as a result, and thousands of our fellow citizens who were then young people, benefited from the resulting improvements and have reason to be grateful to her and to the Departmental Committee of that time for their courageous and far-seeing proposal.

The Departmental Committee on the Supply of Teachers was then seriously concerned that a grave shortage of teachers was likely to ensue for many years. It made it clear that to depend on the normal method of recruitment alone would exacerbate the shortage and that some new means must be found of attracting entrants to the profession. The central purpose of the scheme was introduced by regulations in 1951. Does this modification necessitate other regulations? Will Parliament have an opportunity to discuss this, or is it being done by administrative action alone? If this is so, it reinforces the contention that the statement should have been made in the House.

One of the purposes of the scheme was to give the opportunity to people who had been out in the work-a-day world and in other professions and in commerce and industry to come into teaching—people who hitherto had not thought of teaching, or others who had a latent desire to teach but for financial and other reasons had been prevented from doing so.

One other very important and desirable aspect of this scheme which is to be excluded or discontinued is the valuable opportunity for those mature students desiring a second chance for teaching qualifications. In my view, this is a retrograde step, and it is being done at a time when a section of progressive thought believes that the trend should be the other way, and not a curtailment but an expansion for those willing to have this second chance. I shall return to this in a moment.

The scheme did not seek to lower the standard of applicants, nor has it done so since. But many of those who have entered under the scheme have enriched the profession and educational thought by bringing with them their hard practical experience of the outside world to leaven the theoretical and rather insular atmosphere of the staff rooms which prevailed in former years.

The entrant was granted an allowance towards the cost of fees, books, traveling expenses, and the maintenance of himself and his dependants. Was not the special recruitment scheme more generous to applicants than the methods which are now suggested? Can the hon. Gentleman say what was the approximate average cost of the student entering through this recruitment scheme and maturing at the end of his studies? What are the comparable figures, taking that cost and what the local authority is giving at present? What about the cost of the married man with, say, two children, who is himself aged between 25 and 30, a good technician or supervisor who loses his job with Rolls-Royce and has a calling for teaching? If he elects to go for security rather than a higher salary, how will he fare in applying to a local authority now as against the terms of the recruitment scheme? What, if anything, will the Government save in money? What is the extra cost to the local authority?

Since the local authorities have been referred to, were they consulted in this matter? Were they asked to be even more generous, in view of the new procedure? I understand that no circular was sent to local authorities, even informing them of this change. If that is so, it is a gross discourtesy.

With a unanimity which is rarely evident amongst teachers' organisations, these proposals have had a hostile reception and have been vigorously criticised not only as regards the method by which they have been announced, but as regards the lack of consultation—quite apart from the merits themselves. Not even the supreme General Teaching Council was consulted, and, after all the teething troubles in getting that organisation launched, desired so ardently by the teachers, it would have been wise, politic and courteous to have done so. As I understand it, there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to consult that body, but at least it would have been courteous. The ESI, the SSA and the SSTA were ignored. Surely there must be some explanation.

Many of their criticisms on the merits of the cut-back have been made already. They have been described as: premature in the light of staffing forecasts", "ill-advised", "short-sighted", "a savage cut-back in recruitment", "incredible that this should be contemplated when the primary schools still did not have nearly enough teachers", "it seems wrong that the Government should now deprive such recruits of their second chance of a higher education. Those are some of the criticisms that have come from the teachers' organisations. The students have made similar comments.

In the light of these various reactions, I urge the hon. Gentleman to make serious representations to his right hon. Friend to reconsider this administrative decision. It makes a nonsense of the fact that we still have part-time education in some schools in Glasgow, although admittedly being reduced year by year. We know about the increase in the numbers of students in the teaching colleges, but more needs to be done. In my view, there will be a continuing need not only for more teachers, but for an increased pool of educated manpower for years to come.

I do not want to recite the figures. We know that there is an increasing number of young people staying on at school voluntarily until the age of sixteen, thereby necessitating more teachers. Nor do I need to make more than a passing reference to the raising of the school leaving age, which has our support. I hope that the present maximum of 30 pupils per class in primary and secondary schools will not be immutable and unchangeable over the years, but will be reduced.

I see that the time is passing, and I must give the Under-Secretary time to reply. I hope that he will bear in mind the fluctuating figures of pupil-teacher ratios, about which there was mention in last year's Estimates, and the Secretary of State's estimate that there would be a shortage of 1,000 teachers on a pupil-teacher ratio of 14.5, and that studies have been undertaken to produce a more reliable measure of staffing needs.

Has that study been completed? If so, does it justify the administrative action now being taken by the Secretary of State?

Finally, I should like to refer briefly to a Question by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) to the Prime Minister on a very important change which is taking place. On 8th February this year the hon. Gentleman asked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been drawn to the estimate in Social Trends No. 2 which projected that more people would be needed for the social services, to which the Prime Minister replied "Yes", and then added in a supplementary answer that education would be one of the features.

In view of the changing nuances in industry with the introduction of new technology, and as men will be changing their jobs not once or twice, but three times during their working lifetime, it is important that facility should be afforded to them to come into teaching. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give answers to some of the questions which I have asked. Perhaps he will write to me regarding those questions on which he needs further time.

3.33 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro)

I should like to thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. William Hannan) for his courtesy in raising this debate tonight and for the agreeable way that he has put his case. I am particularly grateful because he has given me the opportunity to correct a number of misconceptions about the changes which have been in the special recruitment scheme for teachers which have been exaggerated by correspondence in the Press and in other places.

First, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the form of the announcement. We certainly hoped that it would be made in an Oral Answer, but the Question was not reached. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there is an immense amount of pressure on parliamentary business at the moment and that it is not always possible for the Secretary of State to make statements on the many subjects which he would like to have ventilated in the House. Indeed, that is another reason why I welcome the debate.

I should like to emphasise that the scheme has not, as was widely suggested in the Press, been ended. It is being retained for important categories of students. The changes will not deprive mature people from other walks of life who are motivated towards teaching as a second career, since such people will in general be eligible for support from other sources of public funds. Almost all of those who gain a place in a university, central institution, or college of education will be automatically eligible for a grant under the students' allowance scheme; while those who require to gain the entry requirements necessary for a course of higher education or teacher training can apply to their education authority for assistance under the Bursaries Regulations. Grants under the students' allowance scheme are in general at the same level and contain the same provisions for dependants and mature students as grants under the special recruitment scheme; and while education authority bursaries are somewhat less, they are at present under review. The hon. Gentleman will agree that, when grants are under review at present, it is inevitable and right that they will rise, rather than the reverse.

For the majority of people for whom such assistance is not available—graduates and people with equivalent qualifications who have already taken a course of higher education, and certain prospective teachers of technical subjects—the scheme is being retained; there is no change.

It would set the changes to the special recruitment scheme in perspective if I draw the House's attention to the conditions with which it was set up to deal in 1951. The hon. Gentleman referred to Miss Herbison, who was then in charge of the Department. Certainly there was then a critical shortage of teachers, and assistance from other sources of public funds was limited. The students' allowances scheme did not even exist, as the hon. Gentleman will know from his long experience in the House. While education authorities could award grants to students pursuing courses of higher education, their discretionary powers on whether to award a grant and the amount of the grant were very wide. The Department's report for 1951 set out the very good reasons why it was essential to introduce a scheme on account of this serious shortage, but I emphasise to the House and the hon. Gentleman that we are today in a very different situation.

First, as I have said, very few people need now be deterred from training by financial considerations. Second, there is no longer a general shortage of teachers. Indeed, the forecasts published on 14th March by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State show that there will be a continuing improvement in the supply of teachers.

Already we are having to consider what steps might be taken to limit the intake of students to primary diploma courses to ensure that we do not train teachers who will be unable to find a job—with all the waste of resources of skilled manpower that that would involve. Present indications are that well before the end of the decade we shall also have to look very carefully at the intake to secondary courses. In such circumstances it would, in our view, be most undesirable to continue to use the special recruitment scheme to encourage mature people to give up their jobs and undertake a long period of training when at the end of the day they may be unable to find a teaching job. This applies with particular force to those who do not hold the entry qualifications for the college diploma course and require to embark on a course of preliminary studies to secure them.

Encouragement has long been available to the older entrant in the form of less exacting requirements for entry to diploma courses. But, with the increasing number of applicants for places on those courses, candidates—whether older entrants or school leavers—who offer minimum passes will, after the intake of next October, be very unlikely to secure a place. I think the hon. Member would agree that at the moment we are talking in terms of two higher grades and two "O" grades for older students, and perhaps of two higher grades and four "O" grades for those leaving school, but one can foresee in the not-too-distant future that standard being raised to three higher and two "O" grades for places on the courses for both categories.

There is no doubt that a competitive situation will develop and that while colleges, recognising their worth, will be willing to accept older candidates, some candidates will inevitably be disappointed. In these circumstances, as I have indicated, continued use of the special recruitment schemes would be wrong. Those highly motivated towards teaching will, however, still be able to train with the help of other assistance available to them as will the mature student looking for a second start in life—and we warmly welcome such students into the profession. If it is suggested that a start will be denied to them, it should be remembered that they will be able to take courses of higher education without having to make the specific undertaking to teach in Scotland which the present scheme requires.

The hon. Gentleman made two points which I will now answer. The first was about the school leaving age and the fact that this might be an inopportune moment to modify the scheme. The answer to this is short. None of the people who are affected by the modifications to the scheme could qualify to teach in secondary schools until 1977–78. By that time, we expect that there will be no general staffing difficulties.

The hon. Gentleman's second point was very valid: he maintained that there were difficulties of staffing in certain areas. I share his concern, and we know that in Glasgow, Renfrewshire and Dunbartonshire, there have been difficulties which are likely to continue for some while yet, but the way to overcome them is not to continue a scheme to attract large numbers into the teaching profession, but rather to improve the attraction by the special inducement payments scheme, which is continuing.

I should like to mention several other points the hon. Gentleman raised. He asked about numbers: in the last complete year for which I have figures there were 612 students, supported under the special recruitment scheme, who gained primary teaching qualifications. Fifty were graduates and 562 non-graduates. In the same years, 377 received secondary qualifications of whom 238 were graduates and 139 non-graduates. Many of them will have had diplomas from central institutions. In addition, 31 students received B.Ed, degrees, which were only just developing at the time.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the regulations. He rightly explained that the scheme was set up in 1951 by Statutory Instrument. That has been overtaken by the 1962 Education (Scotland) Act which set up students' allowances regulations which were again modified in 1971 and were, equally, covered by the 1967 Teachers (Colleges of Education) (Scotland) Regulations whereby the Secretary of State gives guidance on the scheme and can modify it by administrative action.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about costs to local authorities. It is particularly difficult to see at this stage how costs will work out until we know how local authorities will develop the bursary scheme. But, of course, the main effect of this will not come into operation until 1973–74 in relation to local authorities, and by then this can be taken into consideration by rate support grant, so one hopes that it will not cost the local authorities very much more.

The hon. Gentleman was critical about the lack of consultation. I must inform him that there were consultations with representatives of the SRS selection boards and with the principals of the colleges of education. The modifications to the general scheme were very much in line with the views expressed on teacher supply by the GTC in its report in 1969.

The hon. Gentleman asked about teaching ratios. I am glad to tell him that in primary schools we hope that the ratio will drop from 27.8this year to 23.5 by 1975–76, and that there will be a similar improvement in secondary education. There is no doubt that there has been a marked improvement in the introduction of teachers into the profession, which we all welcome very much.

We on this side of the House share the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite of the valuable contribution that has been and is being made by mature entrants to teaching. They break the normal school-college-school cycle and they bring into the classroom a wealth of valuable experience. We share, too, the hon. Gentleman's views on the desirability of giving people who, for some reason, have missed out in their education a second chance to go on to higher education.

I hope, therefore, that what I have said this evening has reassured hon. Members on three counts. First, that the modification to the scheme will not seriously affect the opportunities for higher education afforded by the scheme to mature people who wish to become teachers. Secondly, that the modifications which have been made to the scheme will not have an adverse effect on teacher supply. Thirdly, that the second chance is still there for those who wish to grasp it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Four o'clock.